BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 14 / 2008 WEDNESDAY THE 23RD DAY MARCH 2011. S. Vijayanathan, S/o. Sundarnathan, Proprietor, M/s. Super Marble, No.598, JMS Nagar, Vaniyambadi Road, Tirupattur, Vellore District. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. The Branch Post Master, Teachers Nagar Post Office, Tirupattur, Vellore District. 2. The Post Master, Tirupattur Post Office, Tirupattur, Vellore District. … Opposite parties. . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 16.3.2011, in the presence of Thiru.M.R.Ramanan, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. G. Seralathan, Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant placed certain orders with M/s. Naveen Industries of No.3609, Loha Bhavan, Nali Mandir Wali, Chowri Bazaar, Delhi – 110 006 and sent a registered cover with acknowledgment due on 10.1.2007, with demand drafts towards payments to the said Naveen Industries from the Post Office of the 1st opposite party by remitting Rs.25/- for which he was issued with receipt No.976. The addressee M/s. Naveen Industries, Delhi informed him that they had not received the registered cover and payment towards the orders. Therefore the complainant lodged a complaint dt. 1.2.07 with the 2nd opposite party, for non-delivery of the registered cover. He received letter dt. 2.2.07 from the 2nd opposite party confirming receipt of the complaint and with assurance to enquire into the complaint. However the complainant did not receive any information as to the status of his complaint. He again sent letters dt. 8.6.07 and 27.6.07 about this with even a copy to the Post Master General, Chennai all in vain. When he personally enquired at the office of 1st opposite party, he was asked as to how many demands drafts were in the cover sent. The complainant in turn enquired as to how they were aware that the cover contained demand drafts, for which no explanation was given. The above action clearly shows that the contents of the registered cover had been tampered with either at Tirupattur or at New Delhi by the officers of the Postal Department. 2. The failure on the part of the opposite parties to deliver the registered cover to the addressee M/s Naveen Industries, Delhi within reasonable time has caused severe disrepute to his business with the said M/s. Naveen Industries. He had to obtain fresh demand drafts and sent the same to said M/s. Naveen Industries by spending money. He was put to severe mental agony and distress because of this. The non-delivery of the registered cover and the failure to enquire into the complaint and redress his grievance in spite of lapse of about 8 months amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant caused issue of Notice dt. 13.8.07 through his Advocate which was duly acknowledged by both the opposite parties. The complainant received letter dt. 1.11.07 from the Department of Posts, Customer Care Centre, Tirupattur stating that the cover was wrongly delivered to “Eley Electronics, No.47, Laypat Rai Mkt, New Delhi 110 006. The complainant did not address his registered letter to this address. No further action was initiated by the department of posts in redressing his grievance till filing of this complaint inspite of the above reply. He sent Rs.50/- towards commission on 4 demand drafts totaling to Rs.63645/- which were sent in the registered cover. The complainant also lost the benefit of Rs.25/- paid towards sending the registered cover. In spite of his notice as well as notice through his Advocate, the opposite parties have not attempted to redress his grievance. The opposite parties are liable to make good this loss caused. The complainant also is entitled to claim damages for causing mental agony and were stress due to the action of the opposite parties. Therefore directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. until payment for mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant along with cost. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the 2nd opposite party and adopted by the 1st opposite party are as follows: The opposite parties does not admit any of the averments and allegations contained in the complaint, except those that are specifically admitted herein and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The complainant booked his registered letter with acknowledgement due at “Asiriyar Nagar” Sub Post Office, Tirupattur on 10.1.07 under RL No.976 addressed to Naveen Industries 3609, Lok Bhavan Gali Mandir Wali, New Delhi 110 006. The complainant has submitted one complaint letter to the Postmaster, Tirupattur Head Post office i.e. to 2nd opposite party on 2.2.07. In the said complaint letter dt. 1.2.07, he stated that the above registered letter has not been delivered to the addressee and no acknowledgement card has been received by him so far and asked to take necessary action in this regard. The Postmaster Tirupattur HO has also addressed to the Chief Postmaster, Delhi GPO on the same day and request the Delhi GPO to intimate the disposal of the article. With reference to the Postmaster, Tirupattur HO web complaint, the Chief Postmaster, Delhi GPO (Destination Customer Care Centre) has reported that the RL No.976 dt. 10.1.07 of Asiriyar Nagar addressed to the Naveen Industires 3609 Lok Bhavan, Gali Mandir Wali, New Delhi 110 006 has not been received by his office for delivery and not delivered to the addressee. Further the Chief Postmaster Delhi GPO has requested the Postmaster, Tirupatture HO to forward the dispatch particulars of the RL for further action on 12.2.07 through the web and reminded on 1.3.07. On receipt of reply from the Delhi GPO, the Postmaster, Tirupattur HO (2nd opposite party) has issued a forward / Backward search bill on 5.3.07 to Jolarpettai Railway Mail Service (RMS) for ascertaining the disposal of the article step by step. The Postmaster, Tirupattur HO in his search bill addressed to Jolarpettai RMS has intimated the dispatch particulars of the RL 976 dt. 10.1.07 of Asiriyar Nagar to the Jolarpettai RMS and requested him to forward the search bill to the net stage under intimation to his office. Finally the search bill is forwarded to Delhi GPO 110 006 by the HRO, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi 110 021 on 5.4.07. The Chief Postmaster, Delhi GPO on 4.5.07 has intimated that the RL No.976 dt. 10.1.07 booked at Tirupattur addressed to “Eley electronics, 47 Laypat Rai Marketing Delhi 110 006 was received on 13.1.07 and delivered on 13.1.07 to the addressee. But the RL bearing NO.976 dt. 10.1.07 booked at Asiriyar Nagar So addressed to Naveen Industries, 3609 Loha Bhawan, Gali Mandir Wali, Chowri Bazaar, New Delhi 110 006 stated by the complainant has not been received for delivery. Based on the report of the Chief Postmaster, Delhi GPO the complainant was replied. It is true that the complaint lodged by the complainant to the Postmaster, Tirupattur HO on 27.6.07 and a copy endorsed to the Postmaster General, Chennai has been received by the Supdt. Of Post Offices, Tirupattur Division, Tirupattur through the Postmaster General, Western Region, Coimbatore on 23.7.07. Further on that day itself action has been taken on his complaint. Whereas the Postmaster, Tirupattur HO, did not receive the letter dt. 8.6.07 stated to be sent by the complainant on 8.6.07. In this case the RL is not said to be delivered to the wrong addressee. Further the disposal of the RL No.976 dt. 10.1.07 of Asiriyar Nagar SO addressed to the Naveen Industries, 3609 Loha Bhawan, Gali Mandir Wali, Chowri Bazaar, New Delhi 110 006 could not been ascertained. Hence the above said RL is taken as lost in transit. According to Clause 170 of Post Office Guide Part-1 the Head of the circle may grant to the sender, or at his request to the addressee solely as an act of grace, and not in consequence of any legal liability compensation upto a limit of Rs.100/- for loss of any inland letter packet or parcel or its contents or for any damage caused to it in course of transmission by post. As per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Department is exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as herein after provided, and no officer of the Post Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willful act or default. 4. The department has taken all pain to find out the lost RL and further to find out the disposal of D.D. Though the department is not concerned about the contents of the article, to help to the complainant only, still the department is processing his case. It is not correct to say that the complainant has obtained fresh DD. Actually the complainant has obtained the duplicate DD issued in lien of original one on 23.3.07 and he himself handed over the copy of the DD’s to the Postmaster, Tirupattur HO. Based on that only the department has taken further enquires in this case. It is true that the reply dt. 1.11.07 was sent by the Customer Care Centre, Tirupattur based on the report given by the Delhi GPO. On further enquiry it came to know that the RL 976 pertain to Tirupattur HO was intimated by Delhi GPO and not intimated the disposal of RL 976 of Asiriyar Nagar, Tirupattur. On further enquiry it came to know that the above RL was lost in transit. It is the fact that the complainant has sent one registered letter No.976 booked on 10.1.07 and paid Rs.25 towards postage and registration fee and the above article was addressed to Naveen Industries, 3609 Loha Bhawan, Gali, Mandir Wali, Chowri Bazaar, New Delhi 110 006. But is not known whether the above articles contain DDs. Since there is no superscription as “contain DD” on enquiry it came to know that the RL is lost in transit. A similar case for compensation by a complainant was dismissed in the National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in respect of Revision Petition NO.1139 of 2002 between Union of India ..Vs.. Anil Mahajan on the ground that there was no declaration that the registered letter contained Bank drafts. In this case also the complainant has not stated that he had superscribed upon the cover that it contained DDs as required under Rule 171 (1) of Post Office Guide Part-1. Hence the compensation beyond the amount prescribed by rules as stated in prepare could not be paid. The National Commission has also quoted the Judgment of revision petition 15/1997 dt. 18.9.02 in the above revision petition. The validity of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898 has been upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in its order in R.P.15/1997 dt. 18.9.02 and RP1139 of 2002 dt. 27.11.02. Hence it is submitted that in this case there is no willful act on the part of the Postal Official (or) by the Postal Department. It is therefore prayed that the Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against the opposite parties with cost. 5. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 6. Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.8 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit & Additional Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 7. POINT NO. (a): It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant booked his registered letter with acknowledgment due at Asiriyar Nagar Sub Post Office, Tirupattur on 10.1.07 under RL No.976 addressed to M/s. Naveen Industries 3609, Lok Bhavan Gali Mandir Wali, New Delhi 110 006. The complainant lodged a complaint dt. 1.2.07 with 2nd opposite party for non-delivery of the said registered letter. Based on the complaint, the 2nd opposite party has addressed to the Chief Postmaster, Delhi GPO on the same day and request the Delhi GPO to intimate the disposal of the RL No.976. The complainant again sent reminder letters Ex.A4, dt.8.6.07 and Ex.A5, dt.2.7.07 to the 2nd opposite party. Based on the letter of the Chief Post Master, Delhi GPO, the 2nd opposite party sent a reply letter Ex.A8, dt. 1.11.07 to the complainant stating that the registered letter No.976, dt. 10.1.07 booked at Tirupathur was delivered to Eley Electronics, 47, Laypat Ray MKT, New Delhi 110 06 the R.L, it was delivered to a party other than the addressee and will write to him again shortly. 8. The complainant contended that the complainant received a letter dt. 1.11.07 from the department of Posts, Customer Care Centre, Tirupattur stating that the registered letter was wrongly delivered to “Eley Electronics, No.47, Laypat Rai Market, New Delhi 110 006. The failure on the part of the opposite parties to non-deliver the registered letter to the addressee M/s. Naveen Industries, Delhi within reasonable time has caused severe disrepute to his business with the said M/s. Naveen Industries. The complainant was also put to severe mental agony and distress because of the non-delivery of the registered cover. 9. The opposite parties contended that after received the complaint from the complainant for non-delivery of the registered letter No.976 addressed to Naveen Industries 3609 Lok Bhavan Gali Mandir Wali, New Delhi 110 006, immediately the 2nd opposite party, addressed to Senior Superintendent of Post Office, North Division, Delhi to intimate the disposal of the said registered letter No.976. Further on receipt of reply from the Delhi GPO the 2nd opposite party has issued a forward / backward search bill on 5.3.07 to Jolarpettai Railway Mail Service for ascertaining the disposal of the article step by step. Finally the search bill is forwarded to Delhi GPO 110 006 by the HRO, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi 110 021 on 5.4.07. Based on the letter of the Chief Postmaster, Delhi GPO the 2nd opposite party sent a reply letter Ex.A8 to the complainant stating that the registered letter No.976 dt. 10.1.07. booked at Tirupatthur delivered to Eley Electronics, 47 Laypat Rai Marketing Delhi 110 006.the registered letter delivered to a party other than the addresses and will write again shortly to him. It is further contended that Ex.B6 to Ex.B8 reveals that the registered letter No.976 dt. 10.1.07 addressed to M/s. Naveen Industries 3609 Loha Bhawan, Gali Mandir Wali, Chowri Bazaar, New Delhi 110 006 has been consigned to office of destination on the same day, and it was lost in transit. As per Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Department is exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. 10. According to the complainant, the registered letter No.976 booked at Asiriyar Nagar Sub Post office, Tirupathur addressed to M/s. Naveen Industries, No.3609 Lok Bhavan Gali Mandir Wali, Newdelhi 110 006 was wrongly delivered to Eley Electronics, No.47, Laypat Rai Market, New Delhi 110 006, therefore non-delivery of the registered letter to the addressee M/s. Naveen Industries, Newdelhi has caused severe disrepute to his business with the said M/s Naveen Industries and also put to severe mental agony and distress. From the perusal of letter Ex.A8, dt. 1.11.07 from the Department of posts, Tirupattur Customer Care Centre, Tirupattur Division, Tirupattur to the complainant it is mentioned that with reference to the letters cited above enquires made revealed that the registered letter was delivered to Eley Electronics, 47 Laypat Rai MKT, New Delhi 110 006, they are enquiring into the circumstances under which the registered letter was delivered to a party other than the addressee and will write to you again shortly. The 2nd opposite party stated in the additional Proof affidavit that the Registered Letter No. 976 dt. 10.1.07 of Asiriyar Nagar / TPT addressed to M/s. Naveen Industries, 3609 Lok Bhavan, Gali Mandir wali, Chawri Bazaar, New Delhi 110 006 has been consigned to Jolarpettai RMS on 10.1.07 itself and there from it was consigned to Erode RMS on 10.1.07 for onward transmission, and there from to Chennai Sorting Division, Chennai 600 008 on 10.1.07 itself. The Chennai Sorting Division has consigned the above RL to Airmail Sorting Division Chennai on 11.1.07 through Air / 4 Lorry at 0800 Hours. From Air Mail Sorting Division Chennai it was consigned to Airmail Sorting Division, New Delhi 110 021. From Airmail Sorting Division, New Delhi the disposal of the above RL could not be traced. However the relevant original letters stage by stage consignment of above RL pertaining to the above case is submitted herewith as documentary proof. 1) SRO, Jolarpettai RMS lr.NO.OA1/SR/766/0607 dated 07.03.07, Ex.B6. 2) SRO, Erode RMS lr.No.CH3/SB446/06-07 dated 8.3.07, Ex.B7 3) HRO, Chennai Sorting Division Lr.No.OA5/SB2793/06-07 dated 14.3.07. Ex.B8. Hence RL 976 of Asiriyar Nagar / TPT dated 10.1.07 addressed to M/s Naveen Industries 3609 Lok Bhavan, Gali Mandir Wali, Chawri Bazaar, New Delhi 110 006 has been consigned to office of destination on the same day, and it was lost in transit. 11. From the perusal of Ex.B6, letter from SRO, Jolarpettai RMS Lr. NO.OA1/SR/766/06-07 lr. Dt.7.3.07, Ex.B7, letter from SRO, Erode RMS lr. NO.Ch3/SB446/06-07 dt. 8.3.07, and Ex.B8, HRO, Chennai Sorting Division lr.No.OA5/SB2793/06-07 dt. 14.3.07 it is seen that the registered letter No.976 dt. 10.1.07 of Asiriyar Nagar Sub Post Office, Tirupattur has been consigned to Jolarpettai RMS on 10.1.07 itself and there from it was consigned to Erode RMS on 10.1.07 for onward transmission and there from to Chennai Sorting Division, Chennai 600 008 on 10.1.07 itself. The Chennai Sorting Division has consigned the above RL to Airmail Sorting Division Chennai on 11.1.07 through Air / 4 Lorry at 08.00 hours. From Air Mail Sorting Division, Chennai it was consigned to Airmail Sorting Division, New Delhi 110 021. According to the opposite parties, the registered letter No.976 addressed to the M/s. Naveen Industries 3609, Lok Bhavan, Gali Mandir Wali, Chawri Bazaar, New Delhi 110 006 has been consigned to office of destination on the same day and thereafter it was lost in transit. 12. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that as per Sec.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Department is exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post. Further as per the Departmental rules, the complaint was initially acknowledged and the result of the enquiry will be intimated only on the completion of the enquiry. There is no provision to intimate the status of the complaint to the complainant in middle of the inquiry. Hence not receiving the information about the status of the complaint in the middle of the enquiry is not sustainable as per the rules of the Department. Section 6 of the Indian Post office Act read as follows: - 6. “Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery delay or damages: “The Government, shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so for as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damages, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his willfull act or default. Section 6 can be divided into two parts. The first part deals with the liability of the Government and the second part deals with the liability of the officers of the Post Offices. In the instant case no complaint is filed against any of the officers of the post office. The claim has been made only against the department of the opposite parties. In the instant case Ex.B6 to Ex.B8 reveals that the registered letter dt.10.1.07 addressed to M/s. Naveen Industries 3609 Loha Bhawan Gali Mandir Wali, Chowri Bazaar, New Delhi 110 006 has been consigned to office of destination on the same day by the opposite parties and the said registered letter lost in course of transmission. Therefore the contention of the opposite parties that, the opposite parties have exempted from liability for loss, mis-delivery, delay or damage to any postal article in course of transmission by post under section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act is acceptable. 13. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A8 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein. 14. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 15. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 23rd day of March 2011. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits Ex.A1- 10.1.07 - X-copy of receipt No.976 issued by 1st opposite party towards Registered cover. Ex.A2- 1.2.07 - X-copy of complaint lodged with the 2nd opposite party. Ex.A3- 2.2.07 - X-copy intimation received from 2nd opposite party regarding Receipt of his complaint. Ex.A4- 8.6.07 - X-copy of complaint submitted by complainant. Ex.A5- 27.6.07 - X-copy of compliant submitted by complainant. Ex.A6- 13.8.07 - X-copy of notice issued to the opp parties through Advocate. Ex.A7- -- - X-copy of Postal Ack. Card. Ex.A8- 1.11.07 - X-copy of intimation of wrong delivery received from the customer Care centre of the department of posts. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1- 1.11.07 } - X-copy of letter addressed to the Sr. Supdt. Of Post offices, 23.5.08 } Delhi North Division, Delhi 110 054. 4.6.08 } 21.1.09 } Ex.B2- 5.6.08 } - X-copy of Reply letter received from the Chief Post Master, 3.12.08 } Delhi GPO, Delhi 110 006. 17.2.09 } Ex.B3 – 5.6.08 - X-copy of letter by the Chief Postmaster, Delhi, GPO. Ex.B4- -- - X-copy of particulars of Demand drafts, by City Union Bank Ltd., New Delhi. Ex.B5- -- - X-copy of Post office Guide Part-1 and Sect. 6 of the Indian Post Office Act. X-copy of Duplicate D.D. 27.11.02 - X-copy of order in R.P. No.1139 of 2002. Ex.B6- 7.3.07 - X-copy of SRO, Jolarpettai, RMS Lr. No.OA1/SR/766/06-07. Ex.B7- 8.3.07 - X-copy of SRO, Erode RMS Lr.No.CH3/SB446/06-07 Ex.B8 – 14.3.07 - X-copy of HRO, Chennai Sorting Division lr.No.OA5/SB2793/06-07 MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | |
